Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

[ravage]

Re: Obeying tyrants as a religious duty

@Das_Reich

.

that has more to do with the socio-political conditions at the time of formualtion of the 12er and other related fiqahs.When they were mostly the disadvantaged group.The emphasis then was more on criticiszing the ruling authorities while extolling the position of an ideal just ruler.The imami shia ulema did not have to deal with the practical problems of leading a religious community under the heel of an oppresive monarch.When however they did gain power in certain areas their ulema used pretty much the same justifications for promoting the rule of the tyrants as did sunnis.And the situation remained the same until this passive position was challenged in recent times by Sadr and Khoemini.

That is a rationalization. Neither the sunni true believer nor the shia true believer would find it acceptable to believe that the religious rules they consider divinely revealed are subject to political contingencies.

Everything is open to question if everything is dictated by historical circumstances. And in practical terms, my philosophy is that it doesnt matter how we got there so much as it does where we are now.

This isnt the unanimous position of sunni salaf ( here the distinction blurs between sunni and proto-shia salaf) ,many of whom actively rose up against muslim tyrants or atleast covertly supported such uprisings.

Fair enough, restrict my comment to the sunni (i believe mainstream) view that does advocate obedience to a tyrant aligned to promote God.

Rather this apathy is the culmination of coercion and intimidation by muslim kings during the formative years of sunni fiqahs.This is actually the subject of a huge debate within the sunni circles but its largely ignored by state sponsered mullahs

Is it really a ‘huge’ debate? I think you are in a bit of a minority here.

However if you agree that obedience to a tyrant promoting Allah is not your duty then we’re on the same page.

@Das_Reich

I understand where you are coming from, and i hope you dont misunderstand me when i say that your defination reflects a departure from the conventional understanding of oppression in islam.
It seems to me that you are more concerned with the individual than society.While islam like judaism preaches certain moral codes ( some of which may go against the individual freedom which we living in the west so much cherish).Violation of these God-given codes is likely to invite what we may consider harsh retribution.

How do you know that this is not a result of the same historical processes you were talking about earlier? Why not apply the same deconstruction to communitarian society. Most societies in medieval ages tended to be communitarian, this is the source for things like human sacrifices, where the needs of the group outweighed individual priorities like ‘i dont want to be killed please’.

This could involve use of coercion, force and “subjecting the populace to your subjective understanding of religion and expecting that diversion from that is grounds for violent correction” this quote of yours is an essential part of “forbidding evil” in religion.

Not really. I see nothing in my understanding of Islam, including the specific verses dealing with the issue in the Quran to suggest that this is necessarily a)coercion and force or b) through state machinery.

This is not simply a feature of the "bad apples’ amongst the religious or pseudoreligious class e.g talibs but a feature of all relgious reformers past and present.SOme of which are highly regarded amongst various groups of muslims.

Perhaps. Depending on which historian you read, it seems like Muslim societies historically were perhaps more diverse intellectually than they are today, nor do you uniformly get a feeling that as you go further back in time the Muslim world looks more and more like a Taleban/Saudi Arabian ideal state (ignoring their various foibles, focusing on what they want to achieve).

If you wish to take a historical view of things, you will be aware that it is rare that the ruling ideas of an age arent the ideas of the ruling class. When you wish to draw commonalities across different sects, what you need to bear in mind is that these are the ideas that won out in each sect over time. There is going to be a bias there in favour of ideas that were favoured by the ruling classes… who sharing similar circumstances could come to similar conclusions even across sects.

That is if you want to take the historical route, ofcourse.

The big question remains ( as PA hinted) whose version of religion is to be followed ? and thats the argument used to advocate the seperation of religion and state.However its not as hard as one might think it is, the vast majority of muslims claim to follow one fiqah or more and they could be judged according to the rules of their respective fiqahs.

And is there any criterion on which ‘fiqahs’ are included in this more inclusive Muslim government?